Troops supporting Obama with their wallets?

An entry on the St. Petersburg Times military blog touted as breaking news on the Times' homepage reports that troops deployed overseas have contributed six times more money to Sen. Barak Obama's presidential campaign than to Sen. John McCain's.

The story appears designed to imply that military service members do not support their own mission and have thrown their support behind Obama, who has opposed U.S. involvement in Iraq from the beginning.

But the blog entry omits some important information.

A chart on the OpenSecrets Web site shows the total number of donations to each candidate.
There were 135 donations for Obama and 26 for McCain. With over 170,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq alone, the total percentage donating to Obama stands at a wopping .00008 percent.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that the donations represent all troops deployed over seas, which include personnel stationed in non-war zones.

Statisticians call small numbers like that insignificant.

The real story here is that over 99 percent of all military personnel deployed overseas have made no campaign contributions to a presidential candidate.

Of course, that doesn't make for a very interesting story - and doesn't make a political point.

Aid to Georgia continues

Pentagon officials said the humanitarian aid to Georgia will move into longer range help in the future at a news conference today.

A second C-17 Globemaster III transport plane flew into the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. More flights will follow, but none are scheduled just yet, according to the Pentagon.

The Bush administration's decision to send military aircraft with medical supplies and other aid into Georgia also sends a subtle message to the Russians. Flying in aid allows the U.S. military to project force in the region without appearing provocative.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates also had strong words for the Russian's, saying they took advantage of an opportunity to send a message to other former Soviet republics.

He said the Russian military action was directed against Georgia, but Kremlin leaders wanted nations in all parts of the former Soviet Union to understand the dangers of integrating with the West.

“I think that they had an opportunity to make some very broad points [to these nations] and, I think, [the Russians] seized that opportunity,” Gates said.

Gates holds a doctorate in Russian and Soviet history from Georgetown University.

Georgia, a small nation of about 5 million people has strong ties to the west and has also supported the U.S. in the war on terror. Until recently, Georgia had troops in Iraq. They were recalled when hostilities broke out with the Russians.

300 new police officers in Afghanistan

More than 300 new Afghan Uniformed Police officers from Farah and Helmand provinces will soon begin service in Afghanistan after completing an eight week training program led by members of Task Force 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division.

The rigorous training program conforms to international and U.S. State Department standards and emphasizes counter-terrorism operations, according to a Marine report.

A Marine spokesman said the training is helping to build AUP capabilities, transform the police loyalties, establish the "Rule of Law," develop a "prosecutor-driven justice system," strengthen AUP linkages to higher headquarters, improve Afghanistan Interior Ministry capabilities, and enable GIRoA and MoI to more effectively serve the people of Afghanistan.

The U.S. has had success with similar programs in Iraq, where local police have taken on increasing security responsibilities.

DoD on Afghanistan

U.S. military officials called the situation in Afghanistan a mixed bags and cautioned the media not to take a "sky is falling" perspective in their reporting.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a news briefing on Tuesday that commanders in Afghanistan were asking for more troops, and acknowledged that Taliban activity has increased in some areas, particularly along the border with Pakistan, but also pointed out progress in other areas.

"I think we're all getting a little bit -- overwriting, perhaps, some of this stuff, which is that the sky is falling Afghanistan. I don't think that the secretary believes that is the case. It is a mixed picture in Afghanistan; we are seeing some areas clearly where there has been an increase of violence -- most notably in RC East, where we have seen, because of a lack of pressure on the Pakistan side of the border, an increase in the flow of foreign fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan, and that is causing real problems for our troops there," he said. "But I think you can point to other areas in Afghanistan where there has clearly been progress. The Marines have made real headway against the Taliban in RC South.

"Additionally, we've seen consistent progression in the size and the capability of the Afghan national security forces. So -- additionally, and I think this may be the key component, is the secretary has heard from commanders on the ground who tell him that the enemy actions that we are seeing in various parts of Afghanistan are disconnected from one another, so there is no sort of cohesive enemy offensive that is threatening the Afghan government. But there clearly are pockets of problems, real problems that need to be dealt with, and more forces are necessary to do that."

I have not seen one main stream media report pointing out the enemy activity lacks cohesiveness.

Lack of respect

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barak Obama canceled a planned visit to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany when the Pentagon advised him that he could only visit as a member of the Senate, not as a political candidate accompanied by his media entourage and campaign staff.

The Obama campaign said they were afraid the visit would appear inappropriate.

A New York Times story reported that Scott Gration, a retired two-star Air Force general who advises the campaign and is traveling on the Obama trip, said Obama intended to visit, but didn't want it perceived as a political event.

“Senator Obama had hoped to and had every intention of visiting our troops to express his appreciation and gratitude for their service to our country,” he said. “Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go.”

Some left leaning blogs imply the Pentagon scrapped the visit, and others even contend Sen. John McCain sabotaged the visit.

The Pentagon denies discouraging Obama from visiting, emphasizing Obama was welcome to visit, but simply had to abide by the military's policy that forbids political campaigning at military hospitals.

“Senator Obama, in his official capacity, is always welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital. But it is not permitted to bring with him campaign staff. His team was notified of that, and they made a decision not to visit the hospital. But we were ready and willing to host him there. In fact, we had made arrangements for his campaign plane to land at Ramstein, and to take care of the campaign staff and press in a passenger terminal there, while the senator and senate staff, if he liked, went on to visit wounded warriors. They made a decision based on their own calculations not to visit. Senator Obama, like any other member of the senate, is always welcome to visit our wounded warriors or our military hospitals around the world. But they do so in their official capacity, and not as a candidate. He can come in and bring enate staffers as well, if he likes, but campaign staffers and press are not permitted to accompany him. That would be a violation of DoD directives.”

According to an AFP report, Obama could have visited, but he was only allowed one Senate staffer and appropriate security personnel.

McCain criticized Obama's statements, saying it is never inappropriate to visit troops.

Sean Hannity reported that Obama utilized the void in his schedule to work out.

Reading between the lines, it appears Obama canceled the visit when it became obvious it would provide no photo opportunities, no nightly news story, and no potential bump in the polls.

Why not make the visit out of respect for the men and women who have literally shed blood for this country?

I think Obama's refusal to visit says a lot about the man who could potentially become commander in chief. He has shown a total lack of respect, communicating that wounded soldiers have value only insofar as they provide a prop for his political campaign.

While Obama contends he did not want the visit to have the appearance of a campaign event, the fact that he was welcome to visit without all of the hype that has surrounded the rest of his trip to the middle east and Europe, shows that a campaign event was exactly what he was looking for.

Journalistic frames

The institution of American media continues to cling tenaciously to the idea of objectivity, and while many reporters do strive for balance in their work, many unwittingly, or intentionally, fail miserably to live up to the ideal.

All people view the world through a lens of beliefs, experiences, biases and ideas. Journalists also see the world through these lenses and it colors their work. I believe much of what conservatives call media bias stems from the fact that most reporters possess a liberal world view. Much of what a conservative calls bias, a journalist calls the truth.

This explains how a journalism professor can bemoan the "unprofessional slant" of Fox News and honestly believe CNN meets the criteria of an unbiased arbiter of the truth.

When a reporter writes a story, or an editor chooses what to run or what to cut, they tend to work from a template. Academics call these templates frames. Frames represent the inherent assumptions within a story.

Frames become a problem when the writer fails to realize he has worked out of an assumption that he believes true, yet really only represents his particular world view.

Frames tend to propagate within the media world, and readers will often notice a particular frame repeated in multiple media sources.

One such frame often seen in reporting on the military casts the soldier as a victim.

Many stories fit this frame. The military recruit as poor and uneducated, and the high suicide rate of soldiers are two examples.

Herein lies the problem with frames. They often prove untrue. The suicide rate for soldiers trend close to those of the same demographic group in the general population. Most people serving in the military are not poor or uneducated.

The Lexington Herald Leader ran an AP story yesterday that fits this same "soldiers as victims" frame.

The story chronicles the stress of multiple deployments on military families and particularly emphasizes the high divorce rate and domestic violence.

But the reporter, David Crary, has no statistics, or any solid evidence to back up his claims. The entire piece relies on anecdotal information. In fact, he buried the result of the only study on out there on military divorce at the end of the story because it found that there was no significant increase in divorce for soldiers serving in Afghanistan or Iraq.

He conveniently explains away the study with the following:

Despite the stresses, a study published in April by Rand Corp. concluded that divorce rate among military families between 2001 and 2005 was no higher than during peacetime a decade earlier. But the study doesn't reflect the third and fourth war zone deployments that have strained many military marriages over the past three years.

In truth, we don't know if the third and fourth deployments will create a significant increase in the divorce rate. We could just as easily conclude the divorce rate won't rise.

But that does not fit Crary's frame.

Crary cites one other study.

In Iraq, the latest survey by Army mental health experts showed that more than 15 percent of married soldiers deployed there were planning a divorce, with the rates for soldiers at the late stages of deployment triple those of recent arrivals.

But he fails to provide any context for this number. I was unable to find a similar statistic for the population at large. With U.S. divorce rates averaging high in general, this number actually seems quite low.

In fact, statistics for the general population do show that 64.2 percent of women and 50.5 percent of men who get divorced do so before the age of 24, according to divorcerate.org.

This simply demonstrates that one would expect the age demographic of those serving in the military would experience higher divorce rates in general.

Having experience my own divorce, I know any stress can break an unhealthy marriage, which may well explain the fact that those later in deployment report they are considering divorce.

In reality, we don't know. We can only assume. The whole story revolves around the reporters assumptions based on his frame.

He fails to address what the military does to aid those having difficulty. He does not mention how many soldiers return and reconcile their marriages.

I don't want to minimize the stress, difficulties and sacrifices of our military families. Certainly serving in war zones takes a great toll, both on soldiers and families.

But painting an unsubstantiated picture without actual date because it fits the template does not constitute good journalism.

The above story ran in the Herald right next to the story of the military funeral for Spec. William McMillan III.

McMillan always made good on his promises, said Brad McMillan, his brother.

“He joined the Army with his eyes wide open,” he said.

“He had no regrets. He had no unfinished business left behind.”

It seems as if the editors of the Herald Leader couldn't simply let the story of a soldier who believed in his mission stand by itself. That does not fit their frame. So they included a story that did.

I understand frames. I am sure I write within my own.

The difference is that I admit my bias.

Militant attack in Afghanistan kills nine U.S. soldiers

An attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan killed 9 U.S. soldiers and wounded at least 15 more on Sunday. The attack was the deadliest in Afghanistan in three years, according to an AP story in the St. Petersburg Times.

While violence has decreased and the security situation in Iraq has drastically improved, the situation has deteriorated in Afghanistan in recent months.

The U.S. military is considering boosting its numbers in Afghanistan. U.S. officials say they need about 10,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

Many analysts contend the Pakistani government's inability or unwillingness to gain control of its mountainous border area has given Qaeda and Taliban forces a safe haven, contributing to their increased strength and organization.

* * *

The AP story that I based this post on ran on the front page of the St. Petersburg Times Web page on Sunday night. I don't argue with the newsworthiness of the story, or their decision to give the story such play, but it underscores a bias in main stream media reporting on the war on terror.

I've not seen one story on the Times' home page highlighting any of the progress in Iraq. Just one week of blogging has proven to me it's not for the lack of such stories.

Therein lies the disservice of the main stream media to the American people. The press serves and integral role in a democratic society. People need information to self govern. But our press seems intent on only reporting part of the information. How can a citizen truly inform themselves when half of the story never gets told, or remains buried?

When a citizen reads a major newspaper or watches broadcast news, they can't help but come away with the impression that our efforts in the war on terror are falling short. This impression leads to a widespread lack of support of American efforts as we confront a dangerous enemy intent on destroying our way of life.

I'm not calling for the media to downplay or ignore the bad news. I'm not criticizing the Times for highlighting this story. I'm criticizing the Times for ignoring the hundreds of other stories that hold equal importance.

I am calling for the press to do its job - Its whole job of informing the American people. Not simply bolstering their political agenda.

True hero

American's love their heroes.

But more often than not, the people we exalt as heroes don't really qualify in the true sense of the word. We worship athletes, musicians and movie stars as heroes. In recent years, society has even elevate people to lofty status for inane things like appearing on a reality TV program - the odd phenomenon of being famous for being famous.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with respecting the abilities of a star athlete, or honoring the craft of an excellent actor or actress.

But let's not call them heroes. Talent and ability do not a hero make.

One of the Webster definitions of a hero reads, "one that shows great courage."

A hero makes a conscious decision to walk into danger. A hero exhibits a willingness to sacrifice him or her self for something greater. A hero recognizes that they don't represent the center of the universe.

The U.S. Army honored a true hero yesterday.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 David F. Cooper of the A 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) received the Distinguished Service Cross at a Ceremony at Ft. Campbell, Ky.

Cooper, 48, from outside Cincinnati, Ohio, earned the honor for heroism exhibited during an engagement with the enemy in central Iraq in 2006.

When an AH-6 Little Bird helicopter was shot down and Special Operations soldiers defending the crippled bird came under fire, Cooper flew his own chopper over the enemy at low level, drawing fire away from soldiers on the ground.

He acted with complete disregard for his own safety as he single handedly took aerial action against an armed and numerically superior enemy, according to a military press release.

Military officials recommending him for the medal wrote, "His aggressive actions, complete disregard for his personal safety and extreme courage under fire resulted in him single-handedly repelling the enemy attack. ... His actions assured the survival of the men on this mission and were in keeping with the finest traditions of the special-operations community."

Cooper initially landed his helicopter when the first AH-6 went down. After about 40 minutes, enemy trucks appeared and open fire on the downed helicopter and the Special Operations soldiers who had set up a perimeter. The American's returned fire, but the enemy stayed out of effective range.

It was at that point Cooper made the decision to engage the enemy.

"I knew then I had to get my aircraft back into the air to defend our ground troops. I guess out of sheer instinct, I along with my co-pilot headed toward the enemy forces and returned fire," Cooper said in a telephone interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer. "I didn't do all of this single-handedly because I had a ground crew working with me.

"I'm glad that we were able to uphold the moniker of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, which is, 'Night Stalkers never quit.'"

The Distinguished Service Cross is the Army's second highest medal for combat valor. The Army has honored 13 other soldiers with the medal during the war on terror.

I believe Cooper became a hero long before he won the medal. He volunteered to serve in the Army in 1985, and chose to continue in defense of his country through the war. He's lived his life serving something higher then his own life.

That exemplifies heroism.

In fact, every young man and woman who commits to serve the country, knowing he or she could lose their life, demonstrates heroism in its truest sense.

I understand the need for the media to report things like Abu Ghraib and those rare cases where U.S. military personnel engage in dishonorable actions. The media serves an important role in informing the American people. The information helps citizens to self govern.

What I don't understand is why the media refuses to highlight the stories of bravery and sacrifice exemplified by Cooper and countless other soldiers, sailors, airmen Marines and Guardsmen? Where are the documentaries? Where are the special reports and wall to wall coverage? After one story, if that, the media moves on and we forget these heroes.

In my mind, Chief Warrant Officer 5 David F. Cooper should maintain a place in the American psyche. He, and others like him, should represent what American citizens think of when they think of their nation. A noble group of people who generally seek to do right.

I for one will not forget the courage, sacrifice and heroism of the men and women who defend not only this nation, but the principles of freedom and liberty around the world.



Read Cooper's Bio

Give them some credit

Fox News is reporting some good news from Iraq. (courtesy of the AP)

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq — U.S. forces have captured a man who may help unravel an elite, highly skilled insurgent group whose rocket-propelled bombs have emerged as the biggest threat to U.S. troops, the top commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad said Friday in an Associated Press interview.

At the time of this post, it hadn't seem to have made its way on to CNN or MSNBC.

Saddam's link to terror

One of the mantras trumpeted ad nauseam by the political left goes something like this.

"Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. There were no WMD and Iraq never had any links to Al Qaeda."

While mere repetition has caused this statement to morph into a fact in many people's minds, in truth, there exists ample evidence linking Saddam's regime to terror groups in general, and Al Qaeda in particular. (We'll save WMD's for another day)

Just last month, the Middle East Media Research Institiute (MEMRI) translated a story from a Kurdish newspaper that it claims proves there was cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

"The letter, which appeared on the paper's front page, was published by the intelligence apparatus of the Iraqi presidency and discussed an intention to meet with Ayman Al-Zawahiri in order to examine a plan drawn up by the Iraqi presidency to carry out a "revenge operation" in Saudi Arabia," according to a post on MEMRI blog.

Links between Saddam's regime in Iraq and Al Qaeda were known long before the U.S. led invasion.

The 9-11 Comission wrote in its report:

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two Al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources report that one or perhaps both of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyption deputy Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

The commission goes on to reference reports that Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin safe haven in Iraq in 1999.

While there was no evidence that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien engaged in any joint operations, there were clearly links between the two.

Beyond Iraq's apparent cooperation with Al Qaeda, troops liberating Iraq found several terrorist training camps.

Repetition does not the truth make. While, "Bush lied and people died," makes for a nifty chant, it simply isn't true.

Fighting only half the battle

Guns and bombs make up only part of the war on terror.

While combat units fight to establish security and root out insurgents, civil affairs units work to rebuild infrastructure and aid residents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, the Army's 451st Civil Affairs Battalion works with the Afghan government and international humanitarian organizations in the five southern Konar districts to rebuild infrastructure and restore stability in the area.

Capt. Roman Skaskiw said Joint civil-military efforts make up key components in winning the hearts and minds of Afghans, buttressing the authority of the government in Kabul, and providing a central effort in the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign.

"The overall security situation is becoming more stable,” Skaskiw said. “The reason for the fighting is local animosities influenced by people who feel they are not getting their share of the redevelopment. However, development dampens the insurgency, as evidenced in the improving police, the roads connecting the people to the government, and the burgeoning health care system."

All over Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. military personnel labor to make life better for the citizens. While many on the left portray U.S. forces as unwelcome invaders, in reality, the presence of American troops serves to improve the everyday lives of countless Iraqi and Afghan people.

Joint Cheif's Chairman visits Sadr City

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen visited Baghdad's Sadr City district, and praised members of the 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team for their efforts in making one of Iraq's most dangerous areas safer in recent months.

“We didn’t know where Sadr City was going to go,” the chairman told the soldiers. “Thanks to you, the area is much better and safer; you’ve really made an impact.”

Mullen said that two months ago the streets of Jamilla Market weren't even safe to walk, but U.S., along with Iraqi patrols, have produced significant improvements in security.

Senior officers of the 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team told Mullen that they were gaining confidence in their Iraqi counterparts.

"Iraqi security forces are better equipped and better prepared than they’ve been in many months," said Army Col. John Hort, the brigade’s commander.

Attacks have fallen to the lowest level in four years throughout Iraq, with a 90 percent decrease in the last year, according to military sources.

While there have been security improvements in Sadr City, the area still remains dangerous and Mullen said much work remains.

“I don’t see an end state right now in Sadr City, because it’s got a long way to go,” he said. “It was a place that not too many months ago was a big question for all of us, but continued progress will create a more complete answer down the road. You have to remember that success is a marathon, not a sprint.”

Over 1,200 military personnel in Iraq re-enlist

On Friday, 1,215 U.S. service members from all branches marked the 232nd birthday of the United States by re-enlisting at a ceremony in the Al Faw Palace rotunda on Camp Victory in Iraq.

These men and women already serving in in Iraq committed to over 5,000 years of additional service to their country, according to a Department of Defense press release.

“Volunteering to continue to serve our nation, while deployed – is both noble and inspiring,” said Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force – Iraq.

“It is, as award citations often state, in keeping with the finest traditions of our military services.”

While many in the states push for a military pullout from what they call, "an un-winnable war," men and women on the ground commit to fight on.

The fact these that soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and Guardsmen voluntarily signed up to continue fighting provides a clear indication that they perceive the mission worth while and winnable.

UAE appoints diplomat to Baghdad.

Further evidence of progress in Iraq.

clipped from 66.111.34.180 "The cabinet approved in a session on Sunday the appointment of Abdullah Ibrahim al-Shahi, the current envoy to India, as UAE ambassador in Baghdad," the Agence France Presse (AFP) quoted the source, who preferred not to have his name mentioned, as saying. The step comes one month after UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan's visit to Baghdad, the first ever by a Gulf official at this level since the fall of the former regime in 2003. Iraqi Prime Minister on Sunday said canceling Iraq's debts due for the UAE would improve his country's economy and help stabilize security.

Security responsibility in Anbar turned over to Iraqi forces

A little over a week ago, the United States handed over security control of Anbar, Iraq’s largest province, to Iraqi forces. Anbar is 10th of 18 provinces, and the first Sunni majority area to revert to Iraqi control.

The passing of the baton to the Iraqi’s went by with little fanfare in the media, but the event exemplifies just how much progress the United States continues to make in Iraq.

Anbar, a vast desert region in western Iraq, was once called, “ the bloodiest place on the planet.” The city of Fallujah was the sight of some of the fiercest fighting of the war and the provincial capital Ramadi was a focal point of Al-Qaeda power.

A Sept 12, 2006 MSNBC article asked the question, “Is Iraq’s Anbar Province a lost cause?” The article concluded that the United States would likely leave the province to it’s own devices.

“The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Tuesday there has been some military and economic progress in Anbar, but for the first time, it appears the U.S. military is preparing to concede a large piece of Iraq to the enemy and leave it entirely to the Iraqis to eventually sort it out.”

But while the media was lamenting that U.S. and Iraqi forces were incapable of defeating the insurgency in Al Anbar, they were preparing to do just that.

Working with a coalition of local Sunni sheiks led Abdul Sattar Baziya, a powerful tribal leader whose father was murdered by Al-Qaeda for cooperating with American forces, U.S. soldiers and Marines were already laying the groundwork for victory in the region.

“The brave sons of Anbar have awakened to the need to defend our country. With the help of your country we will defeat the terrorist here,” Sattar told Fox News correspondent Oliver North.

Sattar used his influence to recruit local residents into the Iraqi police force and army. They then began to establish police security stations in Al-Qaeda controlled neighborhoods manned by Iraqi Army units (which were predominantly Shia) and police forces (predominantly Sunni) along with a platoon of U.S. troops.

As coalition forces began to establish a presence in previously insurgency controlled areas, they were able to help local residents return to some sense of normalcy by reopening schools and repairing damaged infrastructure.

So while the prognosticators of doom trumpeted their defeatist stories in newspapers and on the airwaves across the United States, the soldiers and Marines, along with their Iraqi counterparts, were steadfastly pressing on towards victory.

By December 2007, U.S. soldiers could walk down the streets of Fallujah and Ramadi without flack jackets.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have replicated this model of cooperation in many other areas of Iraq, including Shia dominated areas.

The transfer of security responsibility does not indicate total victory, but it does represent a huge step forward. Rebuilding a country from the ground up takes time and effort. Many people forget that it took decades to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII.

Despite what the naysayers may believe, the U.S. continues to make progress in Iraq and the fact that Iraqi forces have quietly assumed sovereign control over more than half the country illustrates this reality.